Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22

From: Andrew Dickinson

Subject: Limitation of actions made interesting

Duty (obligation) corresponding to right. Or vice versa?

--------------------------
Andrew Dickinson
Consultant
Clifford Chance LLP
London

Mobile: 07881 588871

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Foster
To: John Murphy
Sent: Thu Jan 31 00:14:29 2008
Subject: Re: limitation of actions made interesting

Dear All

It is interesting that in A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6 the complexities of saying that "breach of duty" can mean "trespass to the person" are almost completely ignored - Stubbings is given very short shrift, and effectively the Victorian decision in Kruber and the recent High Court of Australia decision in Stingel v Clark (2006) are adopted. To some extent the decision rests on the weight that should have been given to previous decisions (like the one in Billings v Reed in 1945 which described trespass as "a breach of duty as used in a wide sense"). But it certainly provides support for the view that there is a "duty" not to "inflict direct and immediate injury to the person of another" [10] (corresponding, of course, to the "right" we enjoy to bodily safety - Stevens, Torts and Rights, p 332).

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>